117
double meaning of the bow, the explication of fire as φῶς [light] and as that which makes σαφές [clear], allows shining-up, and brings to light, and finally the character of σοφόν and the λόγος. The way of our Heraclitus interpretation is the relatedness of ἕν and πάντα. Our explication begins with the appearances of fire; it then goes over to the relationship of life and death, to the doctrine of the contrasts and the coincidence, to the movement-fragments, the fragment about the god, and from there to ἕν to σοφόν μοῦνον [one thing, the only wise],27 and finally to the λόγος-fragments. It seems important to me first of all to gain an abundant arsenal of ideas and ways of thought. {190} Heraclitus operates with many relationships. When he takes up a differentiation in the sleep-fragments, this is not to be conceived of in the sense of copious vocabulary, but of ways of understanding. His fundamental thoughts are indeed relatively easy to formulate, but the difficulty lies in the refraction of these thoughts into the many ways of thought and ideas with which he is concerned. The fundamental thought of Heraclitus is broken into a great number of ways ...
HEIDEGGER: ... which gives an insight into τὰ πάντα.
FINK: The thinking of the one happens in a manifold manner. As with Parmenides, the ἕν is thought of in a great many σήματα [signs] so with Heraclitus the relatedness of ἕν and πάντα is thought of in a great many ways of understanding.
HEIDEGGER: Where do gods and humans belong?
FINK: In one regard in πάντα, and in another regard in ἕν.
HEIDEGGER: The other regard is precisely what is of interest.
FINK: The relatedness of ἕν and πάντα mirrors itself in the relation of gods and humans. Since ἕν is no factual unity but rather the unity of λόγος. gods and humans are those struck by the lightning of λόγος. They belong together in the λόγος-happening.
HEIDEGGER: Gods and humans in their intertwining relationship have a mirroring function in reference to ἕν and πάντα.
FINK: In Heideggerian language, we could say that humans and gods belong in one respect in what is, but in the {191} essential respect they belong in being. This special position of gods and humans among all that is, which position does not subsume them ...
HEIDEGGER: ... under all that which is ...
FINK: ... is very much more difficult to grasp. Gods and humans exist as understanding of being. The godly and the human understanding of being are ways of the self-clearing of being.
HEIDEGGER: But that cannot be read in Heraclitus.
FINK: We could find the light-nature of ἕν by means of the relationship between gods and humans.
HEIDEGGER: Perhaps this is the appropriate place to make the transition to Fr. 26.